Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Pretty Lies’ Category

A fairly regular bleat from the woe-is-me contingent of hapless beta male romantic losers who’d rather wallow in self-pity than engage the frightening prospect that deliberate effort can improve one’s sex life, is the recurrent assertion that Game – or any of its organic derivatives – will only work on women who are “already attracted to the man”.

This claim is an indicator that the claimant has either

a. no experience seducing women (as opposed to listening to women talk about other men seducing them, or watching women be seduced by other men), or

b. has had the stroke of luck to land Miss Right early in life, settle down, and thereafter be cursed (or blessed, depending on your POV) to view womankind through snow white-tinted glasses, which act as convenient amplifiers that facilitate the projection of male desire onto female sexuality.

First, a tiny caveat. Yes, there will be a particular woman, and a particular time, when a surge of immediate attraction will be powerful enough to propel her post-haste into a man’s bedroomy embrace. These scenarios exist.

Most times, though, a woman’s journey from meeting to fellating is more labyrinthine, less viscerally certain to occur to one or both parties invested in the hoped-for denouement. As any man who’s shivved a day in his life knows, women aren’t wired in the same way as men. Female arousal oscillates on a spectrum from fleeting curiosity to uncontrollable splooging. Fun fact: In the typical relationship, the men that women are dating or have even married will have begun their courtships, unknowingly for the most part, as nothing more than mildly interesting prospects making no more impression than that of a dim speck on the woman’s heart horizon.

The upshot is that in the sexual market, it’s men who have to work harder, and longer, and smarter, to win the love of a woman. Male desire is a rather simpler proposition; it’s on or off, and the switch is pulled within a second of visual inspection of the woman’s face and body.

The lesson here for the average man is that very few women you meet will be “already attracted” to you, and likewise very few women you meet will be instantly and irretrievably unattracted to you. A woman’s attraction is not a switch; it’s a burner that can burn hotter or colder depending on the skill of the man turning the knob.

The majority of women you will date will have felt a little something from the very beginning, but only a few of those women will reach your bed, if any. Dating is not fucking. Pleasantries are not fucking. Kissing is not fucking. Fucking is fucking, and to get there you have to make a woman MORE ATTRACTED to you, which is where the power of Game aka learned charisma, shines brightest, taking you from a dim speck on her heart horizon to a flaming sunRISE announcing a new lay.

Read Full Post »

It’s been said by others, but it’s worth reiterating here. Open borders are an impossibility. If you remove one border, two more, smaller, borders will be created in its place. It’s like the titular creatures from Gremlins. Spill water on one, and five more mogwai spawn.

The logic is inescapable. A big border protects a lot of smaller entities within the territory it rings. Abolish the big border, and small borders will organically arise to protect the smaller entities that were once protected as a whole behind one big umbrella border. Abolish the small replacement borders, and still smaller borders will be formed to protect the integrity of the multiplying units of partitioned entities and territories.

For real life examples of this phenomenon in action, see any gated community, school with metal detectors, or bulletproof glass-enclosed 7-Eleven check-out counter. If you remove the national border, the citizens will respond to their unwelcome vulnerability by erecting borders around that to which they can still control entry.

Open borders libertardians like Cheap Chalupas either are too stupid to understand this or, more likely, are too disingenuous to bother understanding. Perhaps for them, ensconced in the swaddle of their own leafy, 95% White, high trust suburban borders, the recursively multiplying, mitotically dividing, expanding universe of atomized borders and supporting Surveillance State machinery necessary in a Diversitopia are a feature instead of a bug. If that’s how they think, then here’s to hoping their cushioned principles are put to the test the best possible way: with swift and unremitting exposure to the reality of the borderless world they champion.

Read Full Post »

sausagefingers

“I told him ‘jump on the grenade’, not ‘strap yourself to the ICBM and ride it to hell’.”

Is this a case of a rare, genuine fatty fucker feeding the belly and the ego of a blustering megabeast?

I considered this photo and the man who is part of it for submission to the next Beta of the Month contest, but three red flags have me convinced this is staged (and thus not up to the Chateau’s impeccable BOTM contest entry standards).

Before I give those clues away, try to find them yourselves.

.

.

.

.

Ok, here’s where the porkster failed in her mission to further a credible fat acceptance agit-prop.

  1. The feminist fatty hashtags are too “on the snout”. No woman, not even a bitter disguntled obesity, will oink repeatedly on Instagram about “beauty standards” and “body love” when she’s just received an engagement ring, fulfilling a fantasy that most women hold dear since girlhood. Powerful feelings of love, yes real love not “body love”, will supersede a normal fatty’s political agitation programming, and the hashtags will say instead #justengaged #lovehim #imgettingmarried etc.
  2. Whenever a woman starts a thought with “So”, particularly a “so” with three “o”s, it’s a good bet whatever follows is complete bullshit. “Sooo” is the shorter version of “No, but honest-to-God…”. Liars say this a lot.
  3. Finally, the dead giveaway… any fatty fucker worth his blubber-induced boner will know that his porky princess’s sausage links require the dashingly-dilated, goatse’d ring to make it past the second pig knuckle, where the fat really starts to accumulate. Look closely and you’ll see her ring propped indolently above her second finger goiter.

Conclusion: This is a gay BFF, or a brother, or a deeply respectful low-T male feminist friend, conspiring with a fatty fat to help her collect lard-warming feelz in the fake social media universe. Is it still beta? Yes. But it’s not the kind of guileless, inept betatude that normally qualifies a man for BOTM candidacy.

If I’m proven wrong, that won’t change much. A fatty who believes her stroke of luck wresting a marital promise from the equivalent of a human unicorn — the fatty fucker who isn’t also a rotund beast with no better options — means that the world is filled with men who would shower love on her if only “thin privilege” or the pastryarchy would stop “telling them” not to, is still a fatty laboring under delusions of glandular.

Every fatty — and I mean every one of them — would experience improved romantic prospects if they pushed away from the trough.

Read Full Post »

This ad from T-Mobile is just one example of the avalanche of miscegenation propaganda that’s been spilling out of the marketing departments of nearly every major American corporation and media organ for the past ten years, and which have been increasing in frequency tremendously since about two years ago.

coal-mobile

Mudshark monocles sold separately.

Why this sudden explosion of commercial, media, and government mongrelization indoctrination?

I can think of four possible reasons why Globo-Homo oligarchies and their paid-for government shills would actively promote miscegenation as selling points for their products/programs.

  1. Corporations have been overrun by SJW board members, executives, and managers. There are “true believers” now running major consumer and media industries, and they push miscegenation because they genuinely believe in its intrinsic value or they genuinely believe in its value as a mindfuck to ostracize and dispirit those (goyim) who aren’t autonomic cheerleaders for the muddy waters narrative.
  2. Corporations are being heavily pressured by SJWs and Numinous Negro shock troops to be more “inclusive” and “fight White privilege”, and the corps are responding by appeasing these freaks, figuring that the small cost in a presumed tiny number of lost irate customers outweighs the larger cost of bad publicity or settling frivolous lawsuits.
  3. Corporate boards have data which shows that miscegenation sells (to their identified market demos)! They push it cynically, to increase their bottom line, feeling no particular emotional attachment to it. If this rationale is true, then that means a growing wedge of American consumers, particularly those with discretionary cash, eat this MiscProp up. Sad!
  4. The ol’ smoke-n-mirrors. Corporations have created a large and avaricious Miscegenation Indoctrination Machine to distract from their 1%er takeover of the American economy. Keep their natural enemies — anti-fat cat shitlibs and low disgust threshold normies — occupied with technicolor hot button agitprop so that their attention is never drawn to the Globo-Homo elites’ championing of open borders, one-way trade agreements, and outsourcing that funnels money into the hands of fewer and fewer mega-wealthy value transferers while gutting the wages of ever more native sons of America.

I don’t know which reason is the most loathsome. All four probably have some salience (I think #2 and #4 are the biggest gears in the Miscegenation Indoctrination Machine). What I do know is that it is Good and Right to call out these Masturbators of the Cuckuverse for their reptilian scheming and attempted brainwashing. The more people that see this anti-White circus for what it is — the gravest show on earth — the more likely that the malevolent purveyors of mongrelization are beaten back to the loony bins where they belong and America can be great again.

PS I object less to authentically in-love mixed couples than I do to the active propaganda by our overlords to shove it down our throats like some twisted creeper’s idea of love.

Read Full Post »

Cirque du Solei is the most recent entertainment act to boycott North Carolina over a law passed in the state barring mentally ill men in dresses from peeing in front of your daughter in women’s restrooms.

CdS morally preens ans status whores about opposing “discrimination in any form”, (really? discrimination against necrophiliacs too?), but as Breitbart points out, Cirque du Sogay has no plans to cancel its shows in the United Arab Emirates where open homosexuals are put to death.

Cirque du Sashay is one of many examples of shitlib virtue signaling, in which the conspicuous assertion and indulgence of virtuous feeling is more important than virtuous deed. Boycotting a state for an eminently reasonable law to prohibit cross-dressing men from women’s restrooms while continuing to do business in a country that would throw cross-dressing men off buildings to cheering crowds below is as little virtuous as it is greatly hypocritical. Donning a mantle of virtue to impress friends and win plaudits from similarly signaling virtuomos is not the same thing as actual virtue.

There are three psychological motivations compelling shitlib virtue signaling about tranny “””rights””” (this bullet list can be applied to nearly every shitlib cause du jour).

1. Shitlibs don ‘t really believe Arabs (or blacks/mestizos/gypsies/etc) are as evolved, culturally or genetically, as Western Whites, and therefore can’t be expected to adhere to Western morals. Shitlibs are in truth extremely racist and expect more from Whites and less from nonWhites, which is why they punish (as they see it) minor transgressions by BadWhites more severely than major transgressions by NuminousNonwhites.

2. Shitlibs don’t really give a shit about tranny rights, they just want to act self-righteous and gain social status points with their amygdala-stunted SWPL peers. Their virtue, such as it is, is wholly self-aggrandizing in the pursuit of social benefits that will redound to their (awkwardly androgynous) reproductive fitness.

3. Shitlibs are one group of Whites that hate another group of Whites, and their moral causes are merely weaponized rhetoric to lower the social standing of the enemy Whites best situated to be the group that ousts shitlibs from power. Virtue signaling thus accomplishes two fitness-maximizing tasks for the shitlib: raising their own social status and lowering the social status of their most immediate and capable competitors: nonshitlib Whites and shitlib Whites who may grow a pair and stray off the reservation (taking many others with them to foment revolution against the reigning shitlib order). In this motivation, virtue signaling can as reasonably be called ‘virtue warning’.

As the scope of the battles in which shitlibs can morally posture shrinks, the ridiculousness of their causes approaches lunacy. We are reaching the logical end-game of shitlibbery, and it’s nothing less than wholesale normalization of mental illness. One can only guess what’s next on the shitlib plate, but advocacy for “benign” forms of pedophilia and bestiality are certainly a possibility.

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH axiom about any social “””science””” coming out of a feminism-drenched university: If there’s a women’s studies department, the good bet is that the social science department is similarly corrupted, and any feminist-friendly findings are likely to be tainted and worthless. Leftist saturation of academia has become so bad that social expectation bias and self-serving bogus science rubber-stamping the equalist narrative are more the norm than the exception.

On that premise, here’s Greg Cochran sticking the shiv in the hide of yet another crappy feminist study that defies credulity.

I just noticed an new article in PNAS – research by Daphna Joel a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University. Using MRI, she concludes that the brains of men and women aren’t really different. She suggests that the notion that men and women behave differently may be a myth.

She is, of course, utterly full of shit. It’s fountaining out of every pore: her hair will never go gray. We know of many sex differences in the brain – not just volume, not just the fraction of gray matter vs white matter, not just big differences in the incidences of neuropsychiatric disorders like autism and anorexia nervosa. In a few cases (like CAH, or androgen sensitivity, or maybe Turner’s syndrome) we know something about the developmental mechanisms involved. We see analogous differences in animal models: and no, it’s not culture. […]

…similarity in gross anatomy does not ensure similar behavioral tendencies. If I compared the brain of a pit bull with that of a similar-sized border collie, I doubt if I could see the behavioral differences in the size of the amygdala or whatever. Those behavioral differences exist, they’re innate, they have a physical/genetic basis – but at the moment I couldn’t tell you what brain differences to look for. Could be differences in the distribution of neurotransmitter receptors, or differences in axon length, or dendrite connectivity – lots of things, including many that wouldn’t show up on MRI.

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life can’t help but notice men and women are on average different in some powerfully fundamental ways. Desire, sexual proclivity, communication, hobbies, occupational preferences, bathroom habits… the list of REAL WORLD sex differences goes on for miles.

Yet we are supposed to believe a raging lunatic feminist burnishing a conveniently pro-equalist study while steeped in the toxins of a feminist milieu? Yeah, no.

Read Full Post »

From a long thread at MPC about the “red pill”, the assertion in this post raised an eyebrow:

One of the major problems with the Manosphere (that betrays the fact that it’s really just a vehicle for misogynists to try and get laid)

What did I tell you about tradcons sounding just like feminists in their shared compulsion to pathologize male sexuality? So now men with a working libido are “misogynist” according to the tradcon worldview.

is that they demonize female promiscuity while glorifying male promiscuity.

I don’t read red pill sites (except on rare occasions when readers send a link to one they regard as worthy of my attention). Speaking on behalf of the Chateau lordship, there is no “demonization” of female sexuality here. The telling of ugly truths about female nature is not the same as railing against female sexual nature and hoping it goes away or can be turned into something more benign to an equalist view of the sexes. (A glib “is, not ought” should suffice here.)

Now, it is true that, in a vacuum, female promiscuity is far worse than male promiscuity.

“In a vacuum”. How sophistic. Since when has the sexual market ever operated “in a vacuum”? Never. And yet, for reasons explained here ad nauseam (although apparently not nauseam enough), female promiscuity is more corrosive than male promiscuity to relationship and family stability and, scaled up, to societal stability. Yes, sluts really are more dangerous to social health than are cads.

However, male promiscuity REQUIRES either female promiscuity or homosexuality in order to occur.

This is the assertion that roused an eyebrow. (Ignore the homo slur, which is typical MPCspeak when faced with the task of explaining vigorous and unapologetic male heterosexuality.) Superficially, it sounds credible. After all, it takes two to tango. More cads must necessarily mean more sluts to complete the pairings.

Except, it doesn’t work that way. Betraying a deep ignorance (or willful dissembling) about the nature of the sexual market and the psychosexual differences between the sexes, this MPC poaster fails to grasp the reality of female hypergamy and male desire for variety, and how those intrinsic dispositions can affect the arithmetic of romantic pairings.

The top 20% of women strongly prefer to be with the top 10% of men. The top 10% of men will spread their seed among the top 30% of women (and often more widely than that), only strongly preferring the top 10% of women when they are serious about commitment and settling down.

The hypergamy-polygyny nexus results in a shaky equilibrium where a small percentage of cads are having sex with a larger percentage of women. But these cads jump from woman to woman, or they keep multiple women as sexual outlets in a de facto harem, meeting up with each one on an irregular basis, (hence the common complaint among woman dating jerkboys that the jerks they love are never around).

What this means in practice is that one promiscuous man will date ten less promiscuous women, since each of his lovers is likely to be with only him and not sharing him with other men in a multiple concurrent sexual relationship arrangement. (Women are more averse than men are to fucking multiple lovers concurrently.)

Conclusion: yes, male promiscuity can coexist with female chastity. Or a reasonable 2016 facsimile of female chastity.

Up to a point.

Eventually, if there are enough cads (cf., Africa) then sluts will have to increase in number to keep up with the changing ratio of fevered flings to lukewarm LTRs. A society in which 90% of men were promiscuous cads would require a boost in the numbers of promiscuous sluts to bring balance to the sexual force. Or one VERY slutty woman to service all those men.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,606 other followers

%d bloggers like this: